Georgia Court of Appeals Rules Employee Non-Solicitation Provision Must Have Geographical Limitationįrom Scripts to Sanctions: Defendants Dismissed With Help From Plaintiff’s Aggressive Parroting Tossing Pharmacal Out With the Poolwater: Wisconsin Supreme Court Overturns Only Seven-Year-Old Precedent What is a Health Care Liability Claim in Texas? A Tale of Two Casesġ1th Circuit Supports Tolling of Federal Arbitration Act Timeframes in Certain Circumstances Third Time’s a Charm: California Enacts Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 8.3 Snitch Rule Tiebreaker or Deal-breaker? Order of Precedence in Construction Contracts Insured’s Failure to Submit Proof of Loss May Not, Without More, Support Denial of Florida Claims Illinois Appellate Court Says Broker Owes No Duty to Additional Insured Risk-Pooling with JIFs: When Self-Insurance is Not Insurance Proposed EPA Superfund rulemaking on PFAS chemicals could spell major liability issues for insurers, businesses, and property ownersĭon’t lose your right to arbitrate – separate provisions can permeateĬourt of Appeals of Georgia Affirms No Continuous Representation Rule in Georgia Punitive damages are now permitted to be sought in Illinois wrongful death and survival actions In New Jersey, A Recall Notice Alone Is Insufficient to Trigger Lemon Law ClaimsĮighth Circuit finds insurance broker caused no damage to additional insured The Seventh Circuit joins the Eleventh in deciding that the FAAAA preempts state law-based negligence actionsĮleventh Circuit holds one text message sufficient to establish standing in robocall caseĬOVID-19 immunity for health care facilities upheld in IllinoisĪBA passes hotly debated amendments to Model Rule 1.16 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Make “All Persons” Liable for Service to Intoxicated Peopleīack-to-school driving cautionary tips from a lawyer’s perspectiveĪ sign of things to come: Fifth Circuit expands scope of employment practices protected by Title VII Penn Medicine Challenging Largest PA Med Mal Claim Verdict If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Chuck Horn at. Again, this eliminates unnecessary re-typing of documents, reduces the administrative burden of practicing law, and promotes cooperation and efficiency, all to better serve our clients. AB 1349 revises CCP §2030.210 and CCP §2033.210 by adding subdivisions (d) and (e) respectively, which require that upon request by the responding party, a party who has propounded interrogatories and/or requests for admission must provide them in electronic format within three court days of the request by the responding party, if the discovery requests were created in electronic format.ĬCP §2030.210(d)(2) and CCP §2033.210(e)(2) further require that upon request by the propounding party after having received responses to the interrogatories or requests for admissions, the responding party shall provide the responses in an electronic format to the propounding party within three court days. Last year California enacted AB 1349 in order to encourage a more efficient means of discovery. Similar cooperation has now been mandated in California in the discovery context by CCP §2030.210(d) and CCP §2033.210(e). CRC 3.1350(i) made the practice of law more efficient by requiring this cooperation among counsel. Since the separate statement would usually grow to three columns, covering many pages, with separate rows for citations to supporting evidence, this can be a cumbersome document. In California, for more than ten years, upon request of another party, a party has been required to provide an electronic version of its separate statement in connection with a motion for summary judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |